Daniel Snyder drops libel lawsuit vs. newspaper

Though the Redskins didn’t release the information until Saturday night -- on the day before the season opener no less, where they were hoping it would slip silently into the night -- we, along with the rest of the Redskins scribes, want to make sure you know that the free press has won a battle against Washington owner Daniel Snyder.

In a release on the Redskins website, the team announced that he has dismissed his libel lawsuit against the Washington City Paper.

Here’s the statement from team spokesman Tony Wyllie: “The lawsuit was pursued as a means to correct the public record following several critical factual misstatements in the Washington City Paper article. In the course of the defendants’ recently filed pleadings and statements in this matter, the Washington City Paper and its writer have admitted that certain assertions contained in the article that are the subject of the lawsuit were, in fact, unintended by the defendants to be read literally as true.

"Therefore, we see nothing further to be gained at this time through continuing the lawsuit. We prefer to focus on the coming football season and the business at hand.

"We remain committed to assisting with responsible reportage of the team and the many people involved in our organization, including Dan Snyder, and the principle that the truth and the facts matter in responsible journalism has been vindicated."

It was a ridiculous action taken by Snyder -- who said all he wanted was an apology (he, of course, didn’t get one, which was why he sued in the first place).

Here is part of the paper’s statement in response to Snyder dropping the lawsuit:

From the beginning, we have believed that Snyder's lawsuit was a baseless one, designed to intimidate a journalist and a publication that have been among his most persistent critics. We've also argued -- in our pages, and in court -- that our article never said any of the allegedly libelous things Snyder claimed it did. As we defended ourselves, we got unprecedented support from loyal readers who donated thousands of dollars of their own money to help us protect our rights. And we were fortunate to have an ownership group who understood the stakes and stood by us. We're confident that the court would have seen things our way, too, thanks to the strong laws the District of Columbia has in place to protect free speech. But we're also glad that it won't have to go that far.

City Paper is a small news organization with limited resources, and defending ourselves against this lawsuit has cost massive amounts of time and money, well beyond the $34,308.91 that readers have contributed to our legal defense fund. Despite those costs, we are proud that we never wavered or allowed ourselves to be bullied, ultimately leading Snyder to dismiss his case. Though the District’s anti-SLAPP law says courts “may” have awarded us some of our litigation costs had we pursued them, we concluded that it wasn’t worth spending substantially more money, energy, and attention for what would have only been a chance of recovering a portion of what we've spent.

Today, we got what we wanted all along: dismissal of a case expressly designed to pressure us, and filed by a man who now apparently says he never even read the story in the first place.

And good triumphs over silly lawsuits.

For more NFL news, rumors and analysis, follow @EyeOnNFL on Twitter and subscribe to our RSS Feed.

Post Deleted by Administrator

Post Deleted by Administrator

Since: Feb 25, 2009

Posted on: September 11, 2011 1:02 pm

Daniel Snyder drops libel lawsuit vs. newspaper

I needed something to line the bottom of my bird cage so I took a copy the the Washington City Paper out of the trash(I would never buy a copy of that piece of garbage). In todays world, you can print whatever you wish, even if you are making it up. Snyder is a highly visible, rich young person who is a natural target. The nature of slander and libel doesnt allow you to take back the remark. An apology or retraction will not make the previous statement disappear. Snyder purchased the Redskins using almost a billion dollars of his own cash. For right or wrong he may do whatever he wishes with his asset. Even though things haven't worked out for him or his team, I believe that he acts in what he considers to be the teams best interest. When a news outlet is sitting on a fence they can go either way. Good for the owners of that piece of crap: they have purchased for themselves the right to spread their point of view, whatever that may be.

If you had the courage of your professed convictions, you'd have addressed the specific charges and the specific claims. But since you're either intellectually lazy or just being hypocritical, you issue your blanket condemnation of all media and throw in some limp ad hominem evasions designed to cast aspersions on the newspaper in question.

The case, of course, is exactly the opposite of what you've implied. It was Snyder trying to smear the paper with his frivolous lawsuit. He withdrew it because he never had a case. That wasn't the point. The point was to sound a bunch of protestation and noise until everyone forgot what the paper said, then drop the lawsuit once maximum damage has been achieved. This happens all the time with independently wealthy politicians.

On an unrelated note and to everyone else, why is it that we desperately need tort reform every time the poor defend themselves in court against yet another assault by corporate America, but Dan Snyder can conjure a libel suit without any of those "personal responsibility" zealots sounding off?

Since: Sep 2, 2006

Posted on: September 11, 2011 11:21 am

Daniel Snyder drops libel lawsuit vs. newspaper

I needed something to line the bottom of my bird cage so I took a copy the the Washington City Paper out of the trash(I would never buy a copy of that piece of garbage). In todays world, you can print whatever you wish, even if you are making it up. Snyder is a highly visible, rich young person who is a natural target. The nature of slander and libel doesnt allow you to take back the remark. An apology or retraction will not make the previous statement disappear. Snyder purchased the Redskins using almost a billion dollars of his own cash. For right or wrong he may do whatever he wishes with his asset. Even though things haven't worked out for him or his team, I believe that he acts in what he considers to be the teams best interest. When a news outlet is sitting on a fence they can go either way. Good for the owners of that piece of crap: they have purchased for themselves the right to spread their point of view, whatever that may be.

Since: Jul 12, 2011

Posted on: September 11, 2011 9:11 am

Daniel Snyder drops libel lawsuit vs. newspaper

Newpapers writers and Dan Snyder don't feel sorry for neither one.

Since: Feb 25, 2009

Posted on: September 11, 2011 5:13 am

Daniel Snyder drops libel lawsuit vs. newspaper

Another thin-skinned money-bully backs down when someone stands up to him. Yawn.

Since: Jan 22, 2007

Posted on: September 10, 2011 11:41 pm

Daniel Snyder drops libel lawsuit vs. newspaper

Snyder is a small, sad little man...who has more money than I'll ever see in my life.

The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com